Please note that these are the raw comments extracted
from the scoping meeting held at the location listed above.
They were edited for the purpose of clarity where necessary.
Duplicate comments were not repeted. A synthesis of comments
will be available soon.

Concerned about cruise ships and similar activities
in the Sanctuary that currently are not an issue, but
have the potential for impact. Sanctuary should adopt a
proactive approach regarding these activities.

Oil and gas exploration/Drilling in the Sanctuary
should continue to be banned.

Over flight regulation should be based on realistic
potential for disturbance of marine life. Current
regulations often restrict flights that would have no
impact on marine mammals or seabirds.

Concerned about the significant amount of marine
debris (including balloons) washing ashore. More
education to various user groups (party boats) is needed.

Sources of oil/tar balls on beach should be
investigated to determine whether from natural seeps or
anthropogenic sources.

Sources of sediment material from landslides should
be examined; if the landslide is determined to be due to
natural processes, then material should be disposed of in
the Sanctuary.

Regulations should be changed to treat sediment as a
nutrient, and not a pollutant, as it is currently
considered.

More coordination/collaboration and active problem
solving among agencies, to address the issue of sediment
management.

Sanctuary should be involved in the state Coastal
Sediment Management Working Group.

Sanctuary should articulate why current boundaries
are located where they are.

Sanctuary resources should be dedicated to resolving
conflicts. MBNMS needs a policy to deal with conflicts
more efficiently. Should be based on what has and has
not worked in the past.

Sanctuary should have "objective based" policy, and
regulations should have definite goals. Should educate
more about why the policy or regulation is in place.

MBNMS should evaluate current regulations, and
eliminate restrictive policies that are not forwarding
the goals of Sanctuary.

Fishery management agencies should work more
cooperatively together on issues.

Concerned because CDFG Sea Otter Game Refuge
regulations overlap with Sanctuary regs. Evaluate whether
both agencies should be required to regulate or protect
this area.

In cases where multiple agencies overlap in their
jurisdictions, more Memoranda Of Understanding (MOU) are
needed. MOU should determine a lead agency to oversee
natural resource issues.

Sanctuary should develop a method to enforce and
monitor vessel traffic for compliance with recommended
tracks.

GFNMS needs to resolve conflicts between commercial,
recreational and research users at the Farallon
Islands.

Concerned about the vagueness of the GFNMS
regulations regarding white sharks.

Extend MBNMS and CBNMS regulations regarding white
sharks to cover GFNMS, or implement a new rule for
limited entry for charter boats.

Sanctuary should increase collaboration with other
agencies regarding wastewater treatment and water
purification systems. MBNMS should take primary role in
this collaboration, and should develop model education
and implementation.

Programs.

In Santa Cruz, storm drain stenciling is effective.
Need more of this in other areas.

Sanctuary should explore progressive technology for
purification of private and municipal wastewater.

Sanctuary should conduct more education programs for
informing farmers about agricultural runoff and pesticide
use. Should encourage coastal farmers to incorporate
organic methods.

Sanctuary should work with harbors and marinas, on a
program promoting alternatives to toxic bottom
paints.

Sanctuary should prioritize which water quality
issues are most important and pursue them.

Expand out joint management plan model to other
agencies.

Sanctuary should work collaboratively with BLM, which
is also in planning for its California Coastal National
Monument. This is a great opportunity to work
collaboratively.

More coordination with other agencies in general.

Sanctuary should consider economic needs of Big Sur
residents regarding highway one closures. Should consider
marine disposal from time to time.

Sanctuary needs to identify sensitive habitats where
landslides must NOT be permitted, and sediments must not
be deposited.

Sanctuary should identify locations where beach
replenishment is necessary to preclude shoreline
armoring. Landslide sediment is an obvious source for
beach nourishment materials.

Dissatisfied with the management style of the
Sanctuary: MBNMS does not play well with others,
particularly re: coast highway landslide disposal. Does
not consider the needs of other stakeholders in many
cases.

MBNMS needs to be more accommodating of management
styles and priorities of other agencies.

Sanctuary needs to be more accommodating of the needs
of Big Sur residents.

Sanctuary should consider ecological trade offs. In
some cases terrestrial impacts from alternatives to
Sanctuary restrictions are much worse.

Sanctuary should conduct research on tide pools, in
order to better understand ecosystem dynamics.

Sanctuary boundary should be extended south, to
protect the "Harmony Coast" between Cambria and
Cayucos.

Concerned about declining fish populations.
Sanctuary should play a role in preserving fish
populations, while preserving fishery lifestyles.

Concerned with extensive growth in sea lion
population. Sanctuary should do something to address this
issue.

Sanctuary should protect fish populations by
controlling fishing as well as natural predators.

Concerned because of lack of shells on the beach
after storms. There a far fewer than there used to be,
which might indicate that these invertebrate species are
dying out. Sanctuary should investigate the cause for the
decline